A public corruption agenda

Our opinion: What seems like an endless string of scandals underscores the need for a comprehensive package of reforms.

All the seedy allegations of political bribery and other self-dealing that have emerged in recent months, and all the seemingly esoteric talk of reform that’s been kicking around for years boil down to this: An unacceptable level of corruption in New York politics and government, an inadequate system to crack down on it, and a shameless reluctance by the Legislature to fix it.

To their credit, Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week offered an anti-corruption package and the Senate’s Independent Democratic Conference laid out a campaign reform plan that are both steps in the right direction. But they’re slices of a loaf. What New York needs is a sweeping public corruption agenda that demonstrates that Mr. Cuomo and the Legislature are finally serious about setting the ship of state right from stem to stern.

Here, then, we offer a list of the key actions that the governor and lawmakers need to take — this year — if they expect voters to take them seriously when they declare that they’re fighting to clean up Albany.

Crime and punishment

The laws dealing with public officers who violate the public trust need to treat this as the serious offense it is.

The governor and Comptroller Tom DiNapoli have both proposed new laws and penalties. Mr. DiNapoli, for example, proposes to make all such crimes a felony and create a new category for offenses that are an “abuse of public trust.” Mr. Cuomo would create a new crime of “corrupting the government” that would apply to people both inside and outside of government.

Between the two packages, the Legislature surely has enough to fashion a bill this year.

No pension, no exceptions

Two years ago, the state passed a law that would allow the pensions of public servants who commit crimes related to their office or job to be revoked. But because the state constitution prohibits public pensions from being diminished, the law exempted anyone who was in the public retirement system before the law took effect in November 2011 — including every lawmaker who voted for it.

The way to fix this is to change the state constitution, which requires a vote by two successive legislatures and then the public.

They should start now.

Campaign finance reform

We’ve lost track of how long this has been talked about. Now, there’s a proposal on the table, a pretty comprehensive one at that, from the Senate IDC. It incorporates much of what has been discussed over the years — public financing, dramatically lower limits on contributions; caps on spending on political campaigns; an end to party “housekeeping” accounts that are just back doors for unlimited donations; and restrictions on donations from people who do business with government.

While the proposal was just unveiled Friday and we’re not ready to comment on each and every facet of it, it appears to be a serious plan that at least provides the framework for a bill this year.

One candidate, one line

New York is one of a few states that allow candidates to be cross endorsed by political parties. While fusion voting, as its called, may have some benefits — giving people outside the political mainstream a voice and a line they feel better voting for — in practice this has fostered a system of political favors and other shenanigans, often at taxpayer expense. In some cases, third parties have been hijacked by major ones just to get control of their ballot lines.

Shouldn’t parties and candidates stand for something? How does it serve voters or democracy to have ballots full of lines but only two candidates — and in some cases just one — running on them?

There’s a simple fix to this corrupted practice: Stop it. Require political parties to either come up with their own candidates or run no one for a particular seat. And prohibit candidates from running on more than one line.

Serious enforcement

The weakness of New York’s public watchdogs is in some cases a scandal of its own. The state Board of Elections is an ineffective, underfunded tool of Democratic and Republican parties. The Joint Commission on Public Ethics, Mr. Cuomo’s and the Legislature’s answer to calls to reform previous boards, is still a politically controlled entity that has yet to live up to its hype. Consider that it netted last year only a bunch of minor violations, while law enforcement and prosecutors were catching lawmakers in alleged crimes right and left.

What’s needed here isn’t a tweak, but an overhaul. The state needs a more independent watchdog, or several of them, over ethics, lobbying, and elections, not these politically incestuous entities. And the state Attorney General — who so far has been conspicuously absent from Mr. Cuomo’s proposals — should have the power, resources and mission to prosecute election law violations (the IDC proposes this) and cases of public corruption.

And one more thing…

We haven’t forgotten the sham of redistricting — the public promises by politicians in the 2010 election to reform the corrupt system of drawing political districts, followed by an absolute refusal by those same politicians, once they were elected, to live up to their word. Then, as a sop, they and Mr. Cuomo proposed a constitutional amendment, set to go to voters next year, that purports to create a more independent process, but which really would still allow politicians to pull the strings continue to favor them and their parties.

A legislature that sincerely wants to promote good government would scrap this proposal and put a truly independent process in its place.

One Response

How does the Times Union editorial board think we’ll reduce corruption in public service when we tolerate, and even facilitate, theft and corruption in the private sector, with weak investigation and enforcement? We fail to seriously address business owners’ actions that cheat their customers, abuse their employees, pollute the environment, and evade their taxes.

The fact is, we’re getting the corrupt public service our society deserves.